Case Digest (G.R. No. 91552-55)
Facts:
Accused-appellant Fernando Manungas, Jr. alias “Percy” appealed the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38 decision dated October 31, 1989 convicting him of estafa and illegal recruitment in Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994, L-3996, and L-4000. He was sentenced for three counts of estafa to indeterminate prison terms and ordered to reimburse the complainants, and for illegal recruitment on a large scale to life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00, with the penalties to be served successively.In April 1987, he recruited complainants in Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan for employment abroad as janitors in Saudi Arabia, required submission of documents, and collected fees for medical examination, passport, training, placement, and other expenses. The complainants later verified with the POEA and found he was not licensed. He claimed he acted only as an operations manager of a licensed agency and that the money was turned over to Nora Cunanan of Express Pl
Case Digest (G.R. No. 91552-55)
Facts:
- Identity of the accused and nature of the appeal
- Accused-appellant was Fernando Manungas, Jr. alias "Percy".
- Accused-appellant appealed from the October 31, 1989 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 38 in Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994, L-3996, and L-4000.
- The trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment.
- Trial court disposition and penalties imposed
- In Criminal Case No. L-3993, the trial court convicted accused-appellant of estafa for P16,800.00 and, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentenced him to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional as maximum, and to pay costs.
- In the same case, the trial court ordered accused-appellant to reimburse Wilfrey Mabalot P16,800.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- In Criminal Case No. L-3994, the trial court convicted accused-appellant of estafa for P17,550.00 and sentenced him, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days as maximum, and to pay costs.
- In the same case, the trial court ordered accused-appellant to reimburse Danilo Ramirez P17,550.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- In Criminal Case No. L-3996, the trial court convicted accused-appellant of estafa for P18,600.00 and sentenced him, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to two (2) years, eleven (11) months and ten (10) days as minimum to five (5) years, five (5) months and eleven (11) days as maximum, and to pay costs.
- In the same case, the trial court ordered accused-appellant to reimburse the offended party P18,600.00, being the amount paid and delivered to him, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
- In Criminal Case No. L-4000, the trial court held accused-appellant guilty of illegal recruitment on large scale under Article 39, par. (a) of Presidential Decree No. 2018, amending Articles 38 and 39 of P.D. No. 442 (Labor Code of the Philippines).
- The trial court sentenced accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. L-4000 to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P100,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, pursuant to law.
- The trial court ordered that accused-appellant would serve the penalties successively or one after the other according to their severity.
- Recruitment and payments for employment abroad
- Sometime in April 1987, accused-appellant went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan and stayed in the house of Arturo and Lilia de Vera to recruit workers for employment abroad.
- During his stay, accused-appellant convinced these complainants to apply as janitors in Saudi Arabia: Wilfrey Mabalot, Danilo Ramirez, Leonardo Estanoco, and Crisanto Collado.
- Accused-appellant required the complainants to bring all necessary documents for processing their applications to his office in Manila.
- On April 29, 1987, the complainants went to accused-appellant’s office at Room 611, L & S Bldg., 1414 Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila and paid P250.00 each for medical examination.
- Afterward, accused-appellant required complainants, on various occasions, to pay placement fees and other processing expenses, and he issued corresponding receipts for these payments.
- Amounts paid by the complainants
- The total amounts paid to accused-appellant were as follows:
- Wilfrey Mabalot — P16,800.00
- Danilo Ramirez — P17,550.00
- Leonardo Estanoco — P18,600.00
- Crisanto Collado — P13,300.00
- Verification with POEA and filing of complaints
- When complainants failed to leave for Saudi Arabia, they asked Luis "Jing" Ramirez, brother of complainant Danilo Ramirez, to verify with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) whether accused-appellant was licensed to recruit workers for abroad.
- Complainants learned, through a Certification issued by the POEA, that accused-appellant was not licensed.
- Complainants then filed complaints for estafa (defined under par. 2(a), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code) and illegal recruitment on a large scale.
- Informations and accused-appellant’s theory of defense
- Informations were filed in the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan:
- Three counts of estafa in Criminal Cases Nos. L-3993, L-3994, and L-3996.
- One count of illegal recruitment on a large scale in Criminal Case No. L-4000.
- Accused-appellant maintained that he was the operations manager of ZG Recruitment and Placement Agency, which he claimed to be a duly licensed recruitment agency.
- Accused-appellant admitted that he went to Barangay Legaspi, Tayug, Pangasinan in April 1987 and recruited complainants to work in Saudi Arabia as janitors, but claimed that the job order was awarded to Express Placement Agency instead of ZG Recruitment and Placement Agency.
- Accused-appellant claimed that he transferred complainants’ application to Nora Cunanan of Express Placement Agency.
- Accused-appellant asserted that he turned over the fees paid by complainants to Nora Cunanan, evidenced by receipts issued by Nora Cunanan.
- Accused-appellant’s alleged steps after abscondence and his narrative of non-deceit
- Accused-appellant stated that Nora Cunanan absconded with the complainants’ money.
- Accused-appellant stated that he filed an estafa case against Nora Cunanan after securing a Special Power of Attorney from the complainants to prosecute and collect their money.
- Accused-appellant stated he did not attend the hearing because he was arrested in connection with the present cases.
- Accused-appellant denied false representations.
- He claimed he had told complainants he was only an employee of a licensed recruitment agency in Manila.
- He asserted he was not motivated by deceitful intentions.
- He claimed no damage occurred to complainants because the amounts received were actually spent for their medical tests and other documents required for overseas employment.
- Trial court’s determination of recruitment acts and illegal recruitment circumstances
- Article 13(b) of the Labor Code defined “Recruitment and Placement” as any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring workers, including referrals and promises for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not, and provided that anyone who offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons is deemed engaged in recruitment and placement.
- The evidence showed accused-appellant told complainants to submit pictures, birth certificates, NBI clearances, and other documents necessary for processing their employment in Saudi Arabia.
- Accused-appellant collected from each complainant payments for passport, training fee, placement fee, medical tests, and other sundry expenses.
- The trial court treated the foregoing as constituting recruitment under the law.
- The trial court also found illegal recruitment when accused-appellant gave the impression that he could send workers abroad.
- The trial court found evidence that accused-appellant represented that he could send complainants as janitors in Saudi Arabia, which induced complainants to give their money.
- Solicitor General’s point...(Subscriber-Only)